AUSTIN — A state appeals court tossed out one of the charges against former Gov. Rick Perry on Friday, saying that the indictment on a count of coercion of a public official violated his rights to free speech.

The 3rd Court of Appeals found that the second charge, alleging misuse of his office, could proceed to trial.

The indictments have been hanging over Perry as he runs for president, threatening to upend his comeback bid for the Republican nomination. His lawyers called the decision a victory and proclaimed the remaining charge to be “hanging by a thread.” But Perry could have to go to court just as the campaign intensifies.

The case involves Perry’s threat in 2013 to veto $7.5 million for the office of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg if she didn’t resign.

Lehmberg had been convicted of drunken driving, and Perry said she should not preside over the state’s anti-corruption unit. He said he was exercising free speech in calling for her resignation and his rightful power as governor in vetoing the money. Critics said he targeted a Democrat for purely political reasons, used public money as a threat and overstepped his authority.

A special prosecutor was assigned to handle the case. Perry has adamantly insisted that the indictments against him were a politically motivated farce, but all the judges connected to the case — including those on the 3rd Court of Appeals — have been fellow Republicans.

Three of the court’s six judges considered the case and ruled unanimously that, as written, the state statute governing coercion of a public official is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech rights.

“Accordingly, it cannot be enforced,” the judges wrote.

‘Victory for rule of law’

Perry attorney Tony Buzbee said in a written statement that the ruling “was a clear step towards victory for the rule of law.”

“The only remaining count we believe to be a misdemeanor, and the only issue is whether the governor’s veto — or any veto in the absence of bribery — can ever be illegal,” Buzbee said.

On that charge, the court found that objections to its constitutional validity could not be decided until all the evidence was presented at trial.

Special prosecutor Michael McCrum, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in San Antonio, could not be reached for comment.

McCrum has argued in legal briefs that Perry used his lawful power — the veto — in an unlawful way. The governor tried to use public money to force out Lehmberg, a Democrat, although she was in a government office over which he had no control, McCrum said.

He also argued that Perry wanted to stymie the work of Lehmberg’s anti-corruption unit, which was investigating agency spending on projects favored by the governor.

For decades Republicans have chafed that the state’s public integrity unit is run by a Democratic prosecutor.

While the office has charged several high-profile Democrats with crimes, it also indicted Republican U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose conviction was eventually overturned on appeal, but only years later. The charges of political money laundering had cost him his congressional leadership position.

Political perils?

The Perry indictment motivated the Republican-led Legislature this year to remove the public integrity unit from the DA’s office. Investigations of public officials will now be handled by the Texas Rangers and prosecutions, if any, revert to the home county of the official.

Texans for Public Justice, the watchdog group that filed the original criminal complaint against Perry, says the former governor is far from out of the woods with today’s ruling.

“The ruling by the all-Republican three-judge panel underlines the fact that the charges filed against Perry are not the result of a partisan witch hunt,” the group’s executive director, Craig McDonald, said in a written statement.

McDonald said the ruling probably means that a trial will reveal the facts behind the charges. And he noted the political danger for Perry.

“A criminal indictment is a heavy burden to carry in the midst of a presidential campaign,” he said.

Buzbee said, however, that the continuing legal proceedings would “have no impact whatsoever” on the presidential campaign.

In its decision Friday, the appeals court found the coercion law was written in such a way that a public official couldn’t know what was political maneuvering and what was an illegal threat.

It cited a similar case in 1990 in which Bosque County Judge Regina Hanson had threatened — unless the county auditor was fired and a person’s probation revoked — to cut the salaries of the deputy district clerk and assistant district attorney.

She was indicted on two misdemeanor charges of illegal coercion, but the trial court dismissed the charges and an appeals court upheld that decision, calling the coercion statute unconstitutionally vague.

The Legislature subsequently tweaked the law, but apparently not well enough.

“Our holding is hardly a novel one — Hanson reached essentially the same conclusion,” the 3rd Court said.

The ruling could be appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but neither side has indicated whether it would do so.